If it is a fact, then you should be able to supply a legal document stating that fact.

The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3) is an Act of Congress that created and set up the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America, and granted it the legal authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now commonly known as the U.S. Dollar) and Federal Reserve Bank Notes as legal tender. The Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.

I do not agree that law equals violence. But just to make sure we are on the same page, I consider the U.S. Constitution a legitimate document which established a republic form of government including the "Bill of Rights" by being ratified. Do you agree?

Violence is a naturally occurring phenomena. Nature is violent. Appropriate laws should be written to provide restitution and justice for violations of natural right of persons. Laws themselves are not violent. Enforcement of the law may be violent but it doesn't have to be.

I suppose it is a matter of perspective, however, I'd suggest you take a step back and understand the situation.

The government needed a way to pay for war. It was the government that created the issue, and accepted the solution to their problem

Further, it is the government that can "undo" this as they created it. They won't of course because it is very profitable for government. Banks like the deal because it is profitable for them too.

It is a symbiosis - but I believe it is an err to think it is the bank's fault.

The banker do not have guns.
They buy the guns of the provider of violence.

The providers of violence are hungry and need to buy food.
They sell their services to the highest bidder.

Understanding this is key, I believe.

The bankers instigated the war by funding the publishing of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and John Brown's terrorist activities. All other countries ended slavery without war. The bankers saw the opportunity to take control of the United States by usurping the constitution, funding a war, and establishing themselves as rulers. Look at the 14th Amendment which was not lawfully ratified.

Article. XIV.

[Proposed 1866; Allegedly ratified 1868. See Fourteenth Amendment Law Library for argument it was not ratified.]
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

See how the bankers did that? Shall not be questioned. And the amendment was never properly ratified. They funded the war with paper and got paid back in gold. It was very clever. Debasement of currency was a capital crime at the time that Jay Cooke and Salmon P. Chase started printing money. It was not the Federal government that expanded. It was the bankers who took control of the government because they knew the power of printing money. The bankers committed fraud at the risk of getting beheaded to take control of our republic. They legitimized that control in 1913, but it is still in direct violation of the constitution.

A law is not a suggestion - it is a demand (edict) backed up by violence.

Disobey a law, and review the consequences...

But just to make sure we are on the same page, I consider the U.S. Constitution a legitimate document which established a republic form of government including the "Bill of Rights" by being ratified. Do you agree?

No, I do not agree.

I do not consider it "legitimate" no more than you signing a contract with someone else, and demand that I abide by that contract.

I did not sign any declaration, constitution, nor any such document that trades my Rights away.

The Constitution is a document that demands people forgo their human rights in trade for an authority to rule over them.

Sorry, it's not for me.

Violence is a naturally occurring phenomena. Nature is violent. Appropriate laws should be written to provide restitution and justice for violations of natural right of persons.

All true, and I completely agree here.

All Natural Law of Man are laws of self-defense:

To prevent, mitigate, repair, provide restitution and dissuade the use and damage of the Initiation of Violence by men.

Laws themselves are not violent. Enforcement of the law may be violent but it doesn't have to be.

It is either the use or the threat of violence. Do not put blinkers up ignoring this.

The only legitimate use of violence by men is to defend one's self from the application of violence.

"True" Law is that - the use of violence to against the initiation of violence.

It is this thing - the repulsion of the initiation of violence - that is the fundamental foundation of civilization.

As such, government is the precise opposite of civilization.

That is, the entity which claims the monopoly on the initiation of violence is at war with those that proclaims the initiation of violence is never legitimate.

A law is not a suggestion - it is a demand (edict) backed up by violence.

Disobey a law, and review the consequences...

No, I do not agree.

I do not consider it "legitimate" no more than you signing a contract with someone else, and demand that I abide by that contract.

I did not sign any declaration, constitution, nor any such document that trades my Rights away.

The Constitution is a document that demands people forgo their human rights in trade for an authority to rule over them.

Sorry, it's not for me.

All true, and I completely agree here.

All Natural Law of Man are laws of self-defense:

To prevent, mitigate, repair, provide restitution and dissuade the use and damage of the Initiation of Violence by men.

It is either the use or the threat of violence. Do not put blinkers up ignoring this.

The only legitimate use of violence by men is to defend one's self from the application of violence.

"True" Law is that - the use of violence to against the initiation of violence.

It is this thing - the repulsion of the initiation of violence - that is the fundamental foundation of civilization.

As such, government is the precise opposite of civilization.

That is, the entity which claims the monopoly on the initiation of violence is at war with those that proclaims the initiation of violence is never legitimate.

There is a law on the books that states that I get my day in court if accused of a crime. That law comes from the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The fact that people can ignore that law is the problem. Since that law can be ignored, then I can be assassinated. Obeying the rule of law is the solution.

Article the sixth [Amendment IV]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh [Amendment V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth [Amendment VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3) is an Act of Congress that created and set up the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America, and granted it the legal authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now commonly known as the U.S. Dollar) and Federal Reserve Bank Notes as legal tender. The Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.

Thank you.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is null and void of law because it is in direct violation of the supreme law.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.”

"Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

The courts are not legitimate. I understand that. What most people call government is illegitimate because they have exceeded their enumerated powers. The bankers are in charge. Our rulers are a cabal of international elite oligarchs. They violate the supreme law of the land all the time. Laws do not matter to them. In order to get justice the people have to use common law grand juries. The banker's courts are not going to rule against the bankers just like they are not going to let Ron Paul be their president. Again, the rule of law is not the source of violence. Counterfeiting monopolies are the source of violence... they have to be violent to keep their monopoly. They must seek out competition and destroy them. That's the job of FBI, CIA, and the Secret Service.

"Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

If you make a law prohibiting bubble gum, you need to use violence to enforce it.

Claiming "rule of law" is specious - it really all depends on what law is rule.

The benefit of law is not that it is applied equally to all men -it is that threat that it is applied equally to all men.

If I hate the color white, and make a law that prohibits white, and apply it to all men, including myself .... do you think I see such law as prohibitive or evil on me?

Well, of course not. I'm a happy duck - but you will be disturbed. But what of your compliant - I dismiss it by saying "Everyone is equal under the law!"

Thus, it must be more than merely equality of law - we must create the legitimacy of law's application, that is, it can only be applied against initiations of violence - otherwise, it becomes the single greatest tool at increasing violence.

If you make a law prohibiting bubble gum, you need to use violence to enforce it.

Claiming "rule of law" is specious - it really all depends on what law is rule.

The benefit of law is not that it is applied equally to all men -it is that threat that it is applied equally to all men.

If I hate the color white, and make a law that prohibits white, and apply it to all men, including myself .... do you think I see such law as prohibitive or evil on me?

Well, of course not. I'm a happy duck - but you will be disturbed. But what of your compliant - I dismiss it by saying "Everyone is equal under the law!"

Thus, it must be more than merely equality of law - we must create the legitimacy of law's application, that is, it can only be applied against initiations of violence - otherwise, it becomes the single greatest tool at increasing violence.

The single greatest tool of violence is aggression. Again, counterfeiters must aggress against competitors in order to stay in business because if everybody was allowed to counterfeit money, then nobody's counterfeit money would be worth anything. Aggression is required.

If I lay claim to a plot of land for me and my family, build a home, raise a garden, and operate a small airplane factory, then as a self-sufficient individual me and my family enjoy the fruits of my labor. Problem is that Roy L does not believe I have that right. That is concerning only because if he stops by to tell me that I don't have the right to own my land, then that will piss me off. I am not harming him in any way, but he has the nerve to come to my house and challenge my right to enjoy the fruits of my labor because he doesn't think I have the right to own my land.

Thing is that me and my land owning neighbors have made a contract. Our contract states that we will respect each other's land boundaries, right to own land, and we further decide to make rules concerning those land rights. One of the rules is no one is allowed to steal from another. Another rule is no hitting or threats against another are allowed which include no slaves. Land laws are drawn and agreed upon.

The laws are designed to enforce respect for property ownership. It is not a perfect world so the laws are not perfect, but they provide a written general understanding for all so that no one gets sucker punched for violating the rights of another.

Laws of the land are not the main source of violence. Good land laws include protection of natural rights listed so that the laws of the land do not intrude on the natural rights of humans. The U.S. Constitution was a good start. Allowing for amendments was quite helpful to keep it as a living document while keeping it difficult to change on a whim.

Your law against bubble gum and your laws against the color white violate my rights as listed in the 4th amendment.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I have no obligation to obey, you have no power to enforce, your law is null and void of law. The only valid laws you can make can not be in conflict with the supreme law of the land.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.”

"Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

Any law that initiates violence is equally evil, no matter how universal it is applied.

Roy L holds an ego-centric world view, and his philosophy can be summed up thus:

"Freedom for me, but not for you"

I vehenmently disagree.

The Declaration of Independence was a good start.

The Constitution is violent force upon the innocent - it demands taxation; it removes your freedoms; it attacks your rights - all under the illusion it is protecting them.

Jefferson said of the Constitution - which he opposed:

"They have their King, but one of their own making"

Whose opinion? Not mine, and by your vote, I have the guns to prove it.....

You didn't notice the men in blue with badges and a fancy hat? ... oh, and guns.

You go right back to the power of the weapon rather than rule by law. That is the problem... not the solution. Today we are ruled by weapons. It is chaotic. Police are not authorized in the supreme law of the land. Elected sheriffs are.

War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Ignorance is Strength, Indoctrination is Education, Fake is Real.

Don't chew bubble gum. No obligation to obey, no power to enforce... null and void of law.
Same with industrial hemp. We have no obligation to obey, they have no power to enforce. Their law is null and void of law. They have guns on their side ... lawlessness, but not law.

Now your getting it...
...but there is no salvation in a piece of paper, friend.

If the Constitution was worth anything, the US would not have degraded to the degree it has
OR
This is exactly what the Constitution was designed to provide.

So it is either a dead letter or the cause of the stink - either way .....

Or the Khazars Warriors are in charge and you are their slave. Just like the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution ... the people have had to make their stand against oppressors.

The U.S. Constitution was the greatest national constitution instituted in history, but that doesn't mean it was a great document. Many parts were written too vaguely and have helped along the massive growth of the federal government. There are great parts of it too. It is debatable how effective written constitutions can be anyway. The most important point made in the thread is that the constitution means nothing if the people won't defend it, by any means necessary.

We harp on the Constitution here because it is supposed to be the law, and we are the people trying to defend it. Not because it is some magical document.

The U.S. Constitution was the greatest national constitution instituted in history, but that doesn't mean it was a great document. Many parts were written too vaguely and have helped along the massive growth of the federal government.

The most astounding, amazing aspect to me is how the very vaguest parts (Commerce, Necessary and Proper) could expand and be interpreted in such a way as to give power to completely disregard the parts that aren't vague in the slightest (Art. 1, Sections 8 & 10)!

I don't see that as the fault of the Constitution, but rather a string of treasonous criminals who didn't like being constrained by the Constitution, but didn't have the ability to change it legitimately. Hence, the exceptions are always the rule, as the most important rules, especially specific prohibitions, are made to be ignored - treated as if they didn't exist.

The U.S. Constitution was the greatest national constitution instituted in history, but that doesn't mean it was a great document. Many parts were written too vaguely and have helped along the massive growth of the federal government. There are great parts of it too. It is debatable how effective written constitutions can be anyway. The most important point made in the thread is that the constitution means nothing if the people won't defend it, by any means necessary.

We harp on the Constitution here because it is supposed to be the law, and we are the people trying to defend it. Not because it is some magical document.

+1

Exactly, it's not about pieces of paper & what's written on it, they don't defend freedom but people who believe in freedom defend it
A lot is said about the "evil banksters" but the fact remains that they've the power because government gave them the power & government gave them the power because they're self-interested people & the voters are not voting them out despite the fact that they're misusing their power

Fed can be ended, liberties can be restored IF people demand it but they're too stupid & ignorant & have too much faith in government & their promises of "free lunch" & too little faith in liberty & that's what it comes down to, not documents or "laws", it's about people & their belief in freedom, if that's not there then little point in blaming just the "evil banksters", people & their short-sightedness & ignorance must be blamed too

And precisely due to this short-sightedness & ignorance of the masses, governments chosen by them should NEVER have the power to rob & violate others' liberties

"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea."
- James Madison

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be
- Thomas Jefferson

There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman

There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable

But are you ready with new ideas?

Or are they more rehash of old ideas, tried over and over again over the last 10,000 years with pretty much the same result?